The Pentagon has released The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) today. In it, the Pentagon outlines its strategy for the current and potentially future wars the U.S. faces. Notably, it disregards the typical strategy of the U.S. must be ready to fight two conventional wars, instead acknowledging the U.S. must be ready to adapt to face numerous asymmetric wars around the globe at any time and to shift the forces to this new 21st century threat.

Good stuff.
http://www.defense.gov/QDR/
Full report:
http://www.defense.gov/QDR/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf



In addition, the Pentagon released The Ballistic Missile Defense Review, a first of its kind. The report outlines instead of one big national missile defense shield, the U.S. should have many smaller, high adaptable, better cost sustainable systems based in regions that are/ could be threats to the U.S. This is the main argument for killing the Bush system in Europe for a more highly adaptable already proven system that surrounds Iran. Also, a very good report:

http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/
Report:
http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/BMDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200630_for%20web.pdf

Thought this would gain for attention on the board since it is the DoD and Missile Defense, two issues most conservatives are for.

Interesting.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Thought this would gain for attention on the board since it is the DoD and Missile Defense, two issues most conservatives are for.

If you were smart and wanted to create Freehuddle buzz, you should have had "Obama Sucks, QDR and BMDR" as your topic headline...

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: In addition, the Pentagon released The Ballistic Missile Defense Review, a first of its kind. The report outlines instead of one big national missile defense shield, the U.S. should have many smaller, high adaptable, better cost sustainable systems based in regions that are/ could be threats to the U.S. This is the main argument for killing the Bush system in Europe for a more highly adaptable already proven system that surrounds Iran. Also, a very good report:

http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/
Report:
http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/BMDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200630_for%20web.pdf

I am not against this strategy in the short term. But I do not think (if we can afford it) we should throw the long term strategy of an effective national missile defense system under the bus. Not saying we are, as I am not privy to what our long term goals may be as to developing an effective national missile defense system. I think there are many other areas we could cut back, yet still possibly pursue this. I just have little faith in of federal governance of our overall economic situation.

majorspark wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: In addition, the Pentagon released The Ballistic Missile Defense Review, a first of its kind. The report outlines instead of one big national missile defense shield, the U.S. should have many smaller, high adaptable, better cost sustainable systems based in regions that are/ could be threats to the U.S. This is the main argument for killing the Bush system in Europe for a more highly adaptable already proven system that surrounds Iran. Also, a very good report:

http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/
Report:
http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/BMDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200630_for%20web.pdf

I am not against this strategy in the short term. But I do not think (if we can afford it) we should throw the long term strategy of an effective national missile defense system under the bus. Not saying we are, as I am not privy to what our long term goals may be as to developing an effective national missile defense system. I think there are many other areas we could cut back, yet still possibly pursue this. I just have little faith in of federal governance of our overall economic situation.

I think that they intend this more versatile and cheap defense shield to be as or more effective than the other one that is planned. It isn't "throw the long term strategy of an effective national missile defense system under the bus" as much as it is going to a different strategy.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Thought this would gain for attention on the board since it is the DoD and Missile Defense, two issues most conservatives are for.

While I'm all for investing in improving our missile defense infrastructure and wholeheartedly agree with BHO for recommending it, this only demonstrates once again that Obama will campaign on a no-nukes strategery to get elected but when faced with the realities of world politics he defers to the tried and true. While this may temporarily help me sleep better at night I just wish BHO were as pragmatic and realistic with his addiction to spending taxpayer dollars.

believer wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Thought this would gain for attention on the board since it is the DoD and Missile Defense, two issues most conservatives are for.

While I'm all for investing in improving our missile defense infrastructure and wholeheartedly agree with BHO for recommending it, this only demonstrates once again that Obama will campaign on a no-nukes strategery to get elected but when faced with the realities of world politics he defers to the tried and true. While this may temporarily help me sleep better at night I just wish BHO were as pragmatic and realistic with his addiction to spending taxpayer dollars.

He still believes in a nuke free world, but understands as the stockpile decreases you need a robust infrastructure. But, I get your main point.

As to a national BMD, as the world lowers their nuclear totals, and/ or rogue states keep obtaining missile technology, it is best to have a highly adaptive full system to defend against a surprise attack. It made little sense to have one in the Cold War due to the high number of weapons, but in a world with fewer weapons, a system has a better probability to be effective.

But, the system still has some ways to go. The Sea Based X Band radar (which was part of the Bush Europe plan) failed in its test yesterday to accurately track a missile launced in a test. http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100201_1663.php

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: The Pentagon has released The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) today. In it, the Pentagon outlines its strategy for the current and potentially future wars the U.S. faces. Notably, it disregards the typical strategy of the U.S. must be ready to fight two conventional wars, instead acknowledging the U.S. must be ready to adapt to face numerous asymmetric wars around the globe at any time and to shift the forces to this new 21st century threat.

Good stuff.
http://www.defense.gov/QDR/
Full report:
http://www.defense.gov/QDR/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdf



In addition, the Pentagon released The Ballistic Missile Defense Review, a first of its kind. The report outlines instead of one big national missile defense shield, the U.S. should have many smaller, high adaptable, better cost sustainable systems based in regions that are/ could be threats to the U.S. This is the main argument for killing the Bush system in Europe for a more highly adaptable already proven system that surrounds Iran. Also, a very good report:

http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/
Report:
http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/BMDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200630_for%20web.pdf

Great strategy....Obama clamors for a world wide reduction of nuclear weaponry, and then he spends tens of billions of dollars we don't have on more nuclear toys.

Just like the last guy in power, when the military says "jump"...the president says "how high"?

Here's a good read on the mindset of our Nobel Peace Prize President.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247049/Nobel-Peace-Prize-winner-Barack-Obama-ups-spending-nuclear-weapons-George-Bush.html

Footwedge wrote: Great strategy....Obama clamors for a world wide reduction of nuclear weaponry, and then he spends tens of billions of dollars we don't have on more nuclear toys.

Just like the last guy in power, when the military says "jump"...the president says "how high"?

I lost ya. The President is not arguing for building new nuclear weapons, only to reduce the ones we have and maintain an infrastructure so they work. The U.S. is not building a new warhead, the RRW is dead. But, the addition funding is to ensure that as our stockpile goes smaller, it works and does need need nuclear testing.

We are reducing our arsenal, we just cannot let what we have fall apart, hence the increase in the infrastructure. He is not like the last guy who wanted a new nuclear warhead.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Great strategy....Obama clamors for a world wide reduction of nuclear weaponry, and then he spends tens of billions of dollars we don't have on more nuclear toys.

Just like the last guy in power, when the military says "jump"...the president says "how high"?

I lost ya. The President is not arguing for building new nuclear weapons, only to reduce the ones we have and maintain an infrastructure so they work. The U.S. is not building a new warhead, the RRW is dead. But, the addition funding is to ensure that as our stockpile goes smaller, it works and does need need nuclear testing.

We are reducing our arsenal, we just cannot let what we have fall apart, hence the increase in the infrastructure. He is not like the last guy who wanted a new nuclear warhead.

I edited my post up above with a link. We have enough nuclear weaponry to blow up the planet 500 times. To reinvest in the infrastructure of some of our decaying planet destroyers with money that we do not have, makes absolutely no sense....and it slaps in the face the idea that Obama wants a "nuke free" world.

It's more of the same. The new guy is just like the last guy.

Footwedge wrote:

I edited my post up above with a link. We have enough nuclear weaponry to blow up the planet 500 times. To reinvest in the infrastructure of some of our decaying planet destroyers with money that we do not have, makes absolutely no sense....and it slaps in the face the idea that Obama wants a "nuke free" world.

It's more of the same. The new guy is just like the last guy.

No it is not. The goal of a nuclear free world, as said by the President himself, will not be overnight and not be achievable in his lifetime. Therefore, so much as we have them, we have to ensure they work. It is reality. The money is for the new technologies to ensure that as our stockpile goes down, the weapons are safe, reliable and effective.

We can't just cut all funding for our infrastructure as that will leave us vulnerable and will allow the stockpile to degrade.

The two go together. Again, we are not building new weapons, the opposite, we are ensuring that our stockpiles works and eliminating weapons.

Oh, and one more thing, the increase for the increase of dismantling the stockpile cause you know it takes money to dismantle the things. So, that is also an increase. We are deconstructing the bloated stockpile and that is expensive, sorry.

The idea that he is the same is ludicrous and anyone that studies the field knows that it is not true.